Enhancing Inhibitory Control in Older Adults: A Biofeedback Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidomain interventions based on bio-/neurofeedback have proven useful in improving executive functions. The present study aimed to explore the potential efficacy and feasibility of an intervention that combined Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback (HRV-BF) and Near Infrared Hemoencephalography Neurofeedback (nirHEG-NF) on inhibitory control (IC) of healthy older adults. Thirty-four participants were randomly assigned to two groups: the biofeedback group (received a 10-week combined intervention of HRV-BF and nirHEG-NF) and the active control group (received a similar protocol without real-time biofeedback). Besides cognitive outcomes, the study examined pre- and post-changes in autonomic regulation and prefrontal blood oxygenation at rest and during training. Results revealed training-induced inhibitory control gains in one of the two interference tasks, whereas no effect was found on response inhibition. After the intervention, HRV increased in participants with the lowest levels of HRV at baseline. Although older adults increased blood oxygenation during training, no significant pre- and post-changes were found in blood flow oxygenation. These findings not only suggest that HRV-BF and nirHEG-NF potentially improve performance in certain subcomponents of inhibition (i.e., interference vs. response inhibition), but it may also be beneficial for parasympathetic activity in participants with low HRV and for increasing blood flow oxygenation on prefrontal areas during training.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".